Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

House Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect issues Report 3/29/07

By

The House Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect both issued and posted their report on 3/29/07.  It is posted as a 63 page .pdf at: http://www.mass.gov/…

Of special note are the mentions of “disproportionality” with regard to the children from minority communities removed from their parents.

I expect to see legislation filed, where the “rules” and “deadlines” for filing legislation are waived and to track this carefully, reporting HERE.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. In reading the Committee report, I am reminded of a quote from a Roman author, “We tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing and a wonderful method it can be for creating
    the illusion of progress (change), while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.” Pretonius Arbiter-Chief Lt. of Roman Emperor-Nero

    <

    p>
    The key point from a legislative requirement is that the report makes no recommendations that require spending.

    <

    p>
    Every professional organization that testified before the committee said that DSS social workers were responsible for too many families and too many children. They all called for lower caseloads and more real services. These fell on deaf ears.

    <

    p>
    The report says in passing that “Promoting child welfare is labor intensive. Everyone agrees that staffing is the fundamental resource needed to meet the Departments primary objective” p33 But then it is silent on recommending funding. The five year plan it recommends does not address caseload.

    <

    p>
    This committee is writing its report because the recommendations of the 1993 Special Commission on Foster care were never implemented. The warning of that commission was that , No managerial reform would work if the caseload situation (the Child Welfare League of America standards -less than 15 families) was not dealt with. Over 70% of DSS social workers are over that safety standard.

    <

    p>
    I think like New Jersey Massachusetts will need a federal law suit before real reform comes to Child welfare here.

    <

    p>
    The report takes DSS at its word. That the reforms it wants to implement, among them teaming and the family engagement model will work magic without more staff. This is wrong.

    <

    p>
    The teaming units currently in existence are demanding lower caseloads. The Family engagement model which is in use in North Carolina is based on a model of 8 to 12 families per social worker. DSS says it can do it without lower caseloads and the legislature in this report is crossing its collective fingers and hoping DSS is right.

    <

    p>
    In New York, City as stated in a NY Times report, “the department has reduced caseloads for child protective workers from an average of 26 cases per worker to 11. The quality of case assessments and frontline decision-making has dramatically improved. And the foster care population in the city is roughly 26,000, down from a high of 41,000 in 1996, with more children engaged in preventive services than are in foster care.”

    <

    p>
    There is over $14 million dollars (p40) invested in a new bureaucracy called lead agencies which diverts money from services to children. This funding could be used for more direct care staff and hands on services to at risk children. This is not recommended by the report.

    <

    p>
    Until DSS tells the truth about the need for more social workers, the need to stop a staff turnover rate of up to 22% a year, and the need for fewer consultants and more home based services we will see more headlines of children that suffered abuse that might have been avoided.

    • The goal is “permanency” as quickly as possible, with an underlying philosophy of social engineering, post ASFA.  See:  http://www.nccpr.org…

      <

      p>
      The post ASFA goal in this state appears to shift children along lines dictated by class – from the so-called “underclass” to “better folk”, therefore funding good social work and real services are not needed here.

      <

      p>
      As long as the hidden agenda is social engineering – i.e. moving children from one class to another – we will NOT see safe and equitable funding for social work and preservation services.

      <

      p>
      What is needed is to change the whole agenda towards preserving families as being in the best interests of children, not social engineering along class lines – which is what I believe is now the case.

      • Has anyone one asked what the root cause is in the “alleged” rise in “dysfunctional” households. (The word family is inappropriate as it implies a mother and a father or two adults).

        <

        p>
        Why are parent(s) abusing children. Why is alcoholism and drug abuse seemingly implicated in this abuse?

        <

        p>
        Why are children now a throwaway inconvenience in our society?

        <

        p>
        Why so many single parent households?

        <

        p>
        Why if a woman has a right to choose do they choose to procreate over and over and then abuse the child that they chose to deliver?

        <

        p>
        Does the minority community have the same abortion rate as the majority community?

        <

        p>
        Why is there an alleged disproptionality in DSS intervention and custody of minority households.

        <

        p>
        Some people want to fix a symptom, how about fixing the cause?

Archives